[0] https://twitter.com/WHHackersBR/status/1118393568656334850
(that said, google main page vulnerable to xss is kind of like... what, we're afraid someone will take over google and put some cryptominers on the google.com main page?)
6% of the people received a specific email saying the body of their email was accessed and they had to backtrack.
> This unauthorized access could have allowed unauthorized parties to access and/or view information related to your email account (such as your e-mail address, folder names, the subject lines of e-mails, and the names of other e-mail addresses you communicate with), but not the content of any e-mails or attachments, between January 1st 2019 and March 28th 2019.
Notice it says your email account. The whole email is about the account of the recipient, not those of other recipients. Given that they explicitly worded it this way and people clearly misinterpreted it to mean something else, I hope you can forgive me for being a little skeptical of third-party anecdotes that suggest Microsoft claimed nobody's email contents were accessed...
Why wasn’t that the case before?!
There's always a way to enhance your processes, monitor more indicators, etc. or otherwise improve your security.
It wasn't authentication credentials, but still.
> The bigger problem for Google isn’t the crime, but the cover-up. The vulnerability was fixed in March, but Google didn’t come clean until seven months later when The Wall Street Journal got hold of some of the memos discussing the bug. The company seems to know it messed up — why else nuke an entire social network off the map? — but there’s real confusion about exactly what went wrong and when, a confusion that plays into deeper issues in how tech deals with this kind of privacy slip.
(https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/9/17957312/google-plus-vuln...)
as long as you're using software somewhere in the stack that isn't like maturity level 5, AND you don't have constant audits looking for novel attacks on working-as-intended systems, you're pretty much guaranteed to inherit (or create) a vulnerability at some point, and if you're important enough it will get exploited. the reason that doesn't mean we should start modeling computer systems as "living organisms that eventually get old and die" and should keep modeling security like war is that when you get hit, you can respond. all the layers matter, and insofar as Microsoft or Google do it right, they primarily do it right by having a mature process for monitoring, patching, isolating, etc.
as for docker hub though, yeah i'm totally with you. i'm just saying we shouldn't overestimate the preventive capacity of anyone, honestly. if you're doing anything important over the internet at all, you're making some compromises somewhere.
here are 2 links to things i handwaved at above, for example's sake:
https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-email-hack-outlook-hot...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2018/10/09/goog...
But no, not Docker.
You're totally right; with as important as their registry is to well funded attackers, and as startup-y and "agile" as they are, and as godawful as the security practices are that underlie their tools and standards... they hadn't a chance. They still don't.
There is no reason to expect them to get better.